[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190409020327.GA7039@ranerica-svr.sc.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 19:03:27 -0700
From: Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi.kleen@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri@...el.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 02/14] x86/hpet: Expose more functions to read and
write registers
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 10:00:24PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2019, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> > struct irq_data;
> > @@ -109,6 +114,11 @@ extern void hpet_unregister_irq_handler(rtc_irq_handler handler);
> > static inline int hpet_enable(void) { return 0; }
> > static inline int is_hpet_enabled(void) { return 0; }
> > #define hpet_readl(a) 0
> > +#define hpet_writel(d, a)
>
> What for?
>
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> > +#define hpet_readq(a) 0
> > +#define hpet_writeq(d, a)
> > +#endif
>
> Ditto.
>
> There are no users outside of HPET and your new HPET watchdog code for
> those. And both are not compiled when CONFIG_HPET=n.
I'll remove these unneeded defintions.
>
> The only reason to have the hpet_readl() define, which btw. should be an
> inline, is to avoid massive ifdeffery in the TSC calibration code.
May I ask what is the problem with the #define hpet_readl()? Commit
bfc0f5947afa("x86: merge tsc calibration") changed it from inline to
#define. Should I change it back?
Thanks and BR,
Ricardo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists